Offensive Language Analysis

In the following study, the problem of offensive language will be approached by dint of the analysis devoted to its subordinate category, namely insulting. It must be emphasized, however, that the domain of abusive speech encompasses a wide array of interrelated and often overlapping linguistic phenomena which will appear in the paper as well.

To make our considerations as precise as possible, let us start by exploring the notions that represent the theoretical crux of the discussion, namely insult and insulting. As ever with definitions, there is no universal agreement about what exactly constitutes the action of insulting, since the interpretations put forward by scholars throw spotlight at various facets of the analyzed phenomenon. By way

As it is constructive to consider all of the available nuances of abusive language, the foregoing typologies undertake the investigated linguistic phenomenon from various vantage points. The schemes for classifying insults devised by Feinberg (1985) distinguish four, rather formal categories such as: calumny (abusive term that attempts to tarnish the target’s repute to third parties), put-down (an insult which involves a certain amount of authenticity), symbolic dominance claim (one that capitalizes on the subservient position of the target in relation to that of the speaker) and pure insults (name-calling or abusive invectives that cannot be true). Unlike the above-presented classification, the typology submitted by Azzaro (2005) adopts a fairly aim-oriented perspective. Specifically, the author assumes that one can discriminate between two fundamental classes of insults, i.e. hostile offense-centered insults, designed to articulate emotion as well as to derogate, and instrumental praise/interaction-centered insults, which not only express emotions of the speaker but also fulfill the phatic function of the language. The most significant typology – at least for the purpose of this study − is the one drawn between ritualistic and personal insults. The former category is described as a conventional verbal dueling in which

Referring to the theory introduced by Austin (1962), the verbal variety of the said linguistic phenomenon can be classified as a performative, i.e. utterance by virtue of which one may execute an activity. It is not evident how particular forms of words can guarantee the performance of an insult. This matter is further complicated by the fact that we cannot offend an individual simply by saying or writing ‘I insult you’ – in fact, such behavior would be deemed as an illocutionary suicide, since the employment of the explicit performative form would undoubtedly annihilate the illocutionary force of the action (Archard 2014). It is also critical to highlight that insulting is both illocutionary and perlocutionary act (Neu 2008; Ljung 2011), as it exerts a profound impact upon the feelings, beliefs and deeds of the listeners/readers, the sender of the abusive message and other involved people. This line of argument is corroborated by the above-discussed definitions of insults, which emphasize both the aim of the speaker (treating others with disrespect) and the effect (causing the target to experience humiliation). By the same token, the illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects of the investigated phenomenon are reflected in a typical insulting scenario presented by Jucker and Taavitsainen (2000:71). Without going into technical details, the authors enumerate three stages of